Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

The death rate for Nuclear power (in terms of KWh produced) is actually lower than for all other forms of energy.

Yes, nuclear accidents happen at places like Chernobyl. But nuclear plants also produce a lot of energy for each installation. While wind and solar may look safer, accidents do happen (during installation, and during construction), and since each solar panel or windmill produces only a small amount of electricity, you need a lot more to match the output of a nuclear plant.

Actually reactors are being built all over the world. Mostly in China, India and the developing world. But not nearly enough. And France gets almost all of its electricity from nuclear. You used to be able to even tour their reactors.

I read that 55 reactors are being built worldwide. So i looked at the list and saw 4 listed for UAE - really I thought

The death rate for Nuclear power (in terms of KWh produced) is actually lower than for all other forms of energy.

Yes, nuclear accidents happen at places like Chernobyl. But nuclear plants also produce a lot of energy for each installation. While wind and solar may look safer, accidents do happen (during installation, and during construction), and since each solar panel or windmill produces only a small amount of electricity, you need a lot more to match the output of a nuclear plant.

Part of the problem is associated with how nuclear is done today. For example, the pressure vessels for most water reactors require a huge forging that today can only be done at one place (Japan) by one company in the world. And they are backlogged 5 years with orders.

Also, pressurized water reactors have safety concerns that have led to the facilities being over built to the extreme. Molten Salt reactors construction costs are likely to be less than 50 percent of today's water reactors and that cost could probably be cut in half by having them built in factories and shipped to their locations. They won't require defense in depth systems to prevent a catastrophe. No 15 mile evacuation plans.

Overall, molten salt promises to be cheaper and more profitable in the end.

__________________“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Good thing that renewables don't need to be set up for half a century to be economical. So we can absolutely continue to expand green energy while at the same time promoting new reactors.
If we have a CO2-neutral energy source, we can use to to capture carbon and desalinate water - solving the biggest problems we currently face, climate-wise.
It is shortsighted to think in either/or terms when it comes to nuclear vs. solar, etc.

__________________Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.

Good thing that renewables don't need to be set up for half a century to be economical. So we can absolutely continue to expand green energy while at the same time promoting new reactors.
If we have a CO2-neutral energy source, we can use to to capture carbon and desalinate water - solving the biggest problems we currently face, climate-wise.
It is shortsighted to think in either/or terms when it comes to nuclear vs. solar, etc.

So? They still are intermittent. And they have zero chance of solving the energy and CO2 problem. And they kill more people than nuclear.

__________________“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Pumped hydro is dirt cheap, since you can do it when supply is high and demand is low. Energy providers might pay you to take power so the grid doesn't overload or they have to power down and later up bigger reactors.
And a recent study showed that plenty of places would be feasible.
But I agree that advanced nuclear reactors would be more desirable, if and when available.
Until then, hydro will be a better energy storage than giant battery farms.

__________________Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.

Pumped hydro is dirt cheap, since you can do it when supply is high and demand is low. Energy providers might pay you to take power so the grid doesn't overload or they have to power down and later up bigger reactors.
And a recent study showed that plenty of places would be feasible.

I bet a lot of those places, while technically feasible, would run into NIMBYism problems. Such installations, while low risk, are not risk free.

__________________"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Pumped hydro is dirt cheap, since you can do it when supply is high and demand is low. Energy providers might pay you to take power so the grid doesn't overload or they have to power down and later up bigger reactors.
And a recent study showed that plenty of places would be feasible.
But I agree that advanced nuclear reactors would be more desirable, if and when available.
Until then, hydro will be a better energy storage than giant battery farms.

It is not dirt cheap. Although It's about half the cost of battery stored electricity.

There are environmental issues, as well. But you are right about one thing in particular and that is the need to store excess peak electricity or overload the grid. Overloading the grid is becoming a big problem. In Hawaii for example there are new solar customers that cannot use their solar because the power companies won't/can't allow it. The grid cannot handle it.

And there is a huge question of who pays. Let's say as a residential customer you buy electricity from the grid at 10 cents @ kwh. What price should you be able charge your utility when you sell your excess solar back to them? Especially when both you and your neighbors want to sell it to them at peak supply times of the day and year. And you both want to buy power at peak demand in the evening and the cold short winter days.

__________________“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Pumped hydro is dirt cheap, since you can do it when supply is high and demand is low.

Any sort of hydro project can be troubling from an environmental perspective.

From: https://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...e-change-studyThe study from Washington State University finds that methane, which is at least 34 times more potent than another greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, makes up 80% of the emissions from water storage reservoirs created by dams.

From: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/...er_environmentA dam that creates a reservoir (or a dam that diverts water to a run-of-river hydropower plant) may obstruct fish migration. A dam and reservoir can also change natural water temperatures, water chemistry, river flow characteristics, and silt loads....These changes may have negative effects on native plants and on animals in and around the river. ...The greenhouse effect from the emissions from reservoirs in tropical and temperate regions, including the United States, may be equal to or greater than the greenhouse effect of the carbon dioxide emissions from an equivalent amount of electricity generation with fossil fuels.

Any sort of hydro project can be troubling from an environmental perspective.

Not true.

Quote:

A dam that creates a reservoir (or a dam that diverts water to a run-of-river hydropower plant) may obstruct fish migration. A dam and reservoir can also change natural water temperatures, water chemistry, river flow characteristics, and silt loads....These changes may have negative effects on native plants and on animals in and around the river. ...The greenhouse effect from the emissions from reservoirs in tropical and temperate regions, including the United States, may be equal to or greater than the greenhouse effect of the carbon dioxide emissions from an equivalent amount of electricity generation with fossil fuels.

Weasel words.

I am really sick of arguments like this. The truth is, everything we do may have a negative affect - but until you quantify the effect it is meaningless. In fact the vast majority of hydropower reservoirs are producing very low-carbon power.

In certain conditions, a reservoir created by a hydropower dam will release greenhouse gases due to the decomposition of flooded organic material. In other conditions, a reservoir may act as carbon sink: absorbing more emissions than it emits.

A number of researchers have measured reservoir emissions at dam sites around the world, but each study is usually site-specific and the results not applicable to the great majority of reservoirs elsewhere.

When planning a hydro project it makes sense to take into account possible negative affects. That doesn't mean any sort of hydro project is 'troubling'.

High emissions intensities are possible from hydropower reservoirs, even on the same order of magnitude as fossil fuel generators, but only at extremely low power densities. Low power density however does not necessarily translate to high emissions intensity, as many projects with low power densities have emissions intensities well below 100 gCO2-eq/kWh...

It bears noting that the emissions intensity identified from this study applies only to hydropower projects with large reservoirs; many hydropower projects, often run-of-river, do not flood significant areas of land and consequently will have even lower emissions.

No question, if hydro is done badly, it is bad for the environment and potentially dangerous.
But global warming makes it necessary to improve the control of water flow anyway.
Btw, this is already happening - worldwide, the number of hydroelectric installations is rising rapidly, including in the US.

__________________Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.

__________________"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald

Nothing is risk free. That's not a useful criterion for evaluation of energy alternatives.

I'm not evaluating energy alternatives in that post, I'm evaluating people's response to those alternatives. They are frequently not rational. If they were, the nuclear energy landscape would look a lot different than it does.

__________________"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Well, since you ask, I agree that the attitudes of the general public towards nuclear power are irrational and based on misinformation and a lack of knowledge of new designs and technologies. It's a lot safer than people think. But there's still a problem with what to do with the waste. The technology for dealing with that is improving, but not so far that it's not still a problem.

Nuclear power providers have been lazy, unwilling to innovate and only interested in cashing in.
There is more fear than warranted, but there is also more risk and waste than necessary due to short-sighted greed.

__________________Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.

I'm not evaluating energy alternatives in that post, I'm evaluating people's response to those alternatives. They are frequently not rational. If they were, the nuclear energy landscape would look a lot different than it does.

Humans are largely irrational. Focused thinking is a learned skill, not an innate feature of us. In that light, maybe the nuke industry should have spent a lot more on their educational PR than on the next generation of power plant technology.

Humans are largely irrational. Focused thinking is a learned skill, not an innate feature of us. In that light, maybe the nuke industry should have spent a lot more on their educational PR than on the next generation of power plant technology.

yeah, but a Mega-Dam breaking due to cheap concrete and poor maintenance can kill tens of thousands in a matter of hours - something even a Chernobly meltdown in a populated ares might have a hard time achieving.

__________________Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.

yeah, but a Mega-Dam breaking due to cheap concrete and poor maintenance can kill tens of thousands in a matter of hours - something even a Chernobly meltdown in a populated ares might have a hard time achieving.

__________________"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Humans are largely irrational. Focused thinking is a learned skill, not an innate feature of us. In that light, maybe the nuke industry should have spent a lot more on their educational PR than on the next generation of power plant technology.

I'm not sure it would have worked. The problem is asymmetric, it's easier to make people scared of something like nuclear energy than it is to educate them about its safety.

__________________"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

I am really sick of arguments like this. The truth is, everything we do may have a negative affect - but until you quantify the effect it is meaningless. In fact the vast majority of hydropower reservoirs are producing very low-carbon power.

They are, however, drowning habitats and interfering with existing ecosystems.

So there's a pretty large environmental impact even before we look at the actual power generation piece itself.

A nuke plant has a much smaller footprint on the environment, and waste storage tends to happen in sterile places far from any habitat or ecosystem. You don't have to run around turning river valleys into artificial lakes, to get nuke power.

Part of the problem is associated with how nuclear is done today. For example, the pressure vessels for most water reactors require a huge forging that today can only be done at one place (Japan) by one company in the world. And they are backlogged 5 years with orders.

Also, pressurized water reactors have safety concerns that have led to the facilities being over built to the extreme. Molten Salt reactors construction costs are likely to be less than 50 percent of today's water reactors and that cost could probably be cut in half by having them built in factories and shipped to their locations. They won't require defense in depth systems to prevent a catastrophe. No 15 mile evacuation plans.

Overall, molten salt promises to be cheaper and more profitable in the end.

Can you sketch a realistic scenario under which such a promise leads to a 90+% reduction in net CO2 emission by the electricity generation sector, globally, by 2030 say?

Can you sketch a realistic scenario under which such a promise leads to a 90+% reduction in net CO2 emission by the electricity generation sector, globally, by 2030 say?

There is no realistic scenario of achieving that by any means by 2030. It will not happen.

__________________"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Can you sketch a realistic scenario under which such a promise leads to a 90+% reduction in net CO2 emission by the electricity generation sector, globally, by 2030 say?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

There is no realistic scenario of achieving that by any means by 2030. It will not happen.

Originally Posted by JeanTate

Perhaps, perhaps not.

I am interested in better understanding abcytesla’s claims, however, and am looking forward to a (preferably detailed) response from her.

Zig is right. There is no way we will cut 90% of CO2 emissions by 2030 or even 2040 with any method. Maybe 2050. But even that seems rosey.

The Molten Salt Reactor Experiment despite being highly successful was abandoned and almost forgotten forever in the early 70s. It was only rediscovered about 10 years ago. The reactor ran for 4 years. Unlike fusion reactors that have run for mere seconds. But the MSRE was a relatively tiny reactor.

What needs to happen as soon as possible is a larger molten salt test reactor or reactors need to be built. We need a methodology to quickly and safely build and licences reactors.

They need to be built and licensed at a factory and shipped to site. This was mostly impossible with PWRs because they are huge and required significant on-site work.. But Liquid Fuel Molten Salt reactors are likely to be 1/4th the size of PWRs and the building that houses it will be tiny compared to the massive concrete structures that house PWRs. In a factory setting I can see reactor after reactor rolling off the line and shipped to site each providing cheap clean safe energy in many different forms.

__________________“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Zig is right. There is no way we will cut 90% of CO2 emissions by 2030 or even 2040 with any method. Maybe 2050. But even that seems rosey.

The Molten Salt Reactor Experiment despite being highly successful was abandoned and almost forgotten forever in the early 70s. It was only rediscovered about 10 years ago. The reactor ran for 4 years. Unlike fusion reactors that have run for mere seconds. But the MSRE was a relatively tiny reactor.

What needs to happen as soon as possible is a larger molten salt test reactor or reactors need to be built. We need a methodology to quickly and safely build and licences reactors.

They need to be built and licensed at a factory and shipped to site. This was mostly impossible with PWRs because they are huge and required significant on-site work.. But Liquid Fuel Molten Salt reactors are likely to be 1/4th the size of PWRs and the building that houses it will be tiny compared to the massive concrete structures that house PWRs. In a factory setting I can see reactor after reactor rolling off the line and shipped to site each providing cheap clean safe energy in many different forms.

Thanks.

What is a realistic range (electricity production) of such reactors, by 2030? 2040? 2050? Globally. Under favorable, but not ridiculous, circumstances.

What is a realistic range (electricity production) of such reactors, by 2030? 2040? 2050? Globally. Under favorable, but not ridiculous, circumstances.

I'm not sure anyone can provide you with a realistic range. It really depends on how things develop both politically and technically. That said. I can see 5 Gw a year in 2030 and 2 Tw a year in 2050 of new power generation. Far too many variables though to say if this is too optimistic.

__________________“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

I'm not sure anyone can provide you with a realistic range. It really depends on how things develop both politically and technically. That said. I can see 5 Gw a year in 2030 and 2 Tw a year in 2050 of new power generation. Far too many variables though to say if this is too optimistic.

Thanks.

For comparison, what’s the current global (fixed site) electricity generation? How much of that comes from CO2-making methods?

Wild idea: replace coal-fired plants with MSR-based ones. At the same locations. Aside from coal plant de-commissioning stuff, what major technical challenges would there be?

I'm not sure anyone can provide you with a realistic range. It really depends on how things develop both politically and technically. That said. I can see 5 Gw a year in 2030 and 2 Tw a year in 2050 of new power generation. Far too many variables though to say if this is too optimistic.

Originally Posted by JeanTate

Thanks.

For comparison, what’s the current global (fixed site) electricity generation? How much of that comes from CO2-making methods?

Wild idea: replace coal-fired plants with MSR-based ones. At the same locations. Aside from coal plant de-commissioning stuff, what major technical challenges would there be?

I believe my first guess about what it could be in 2050 was actually too low. Think 5Tw in 2040 and 50Tw per year in 2050 and 500Tw of new power per year in 2060.

Quote:

The total amount of electricity consumed worldwide was 19,504 TWh in 2013, 16,503 TWh in 2008, 15,105 TWh in 2005, and 12,116 TWh in 2000. By the end of 2014, the total installed electricity generating capacity worldwide was nearly 6.142 TW (million MW) which only includes generation connected to local electricity grids.[15] In addition there is an unknown amount of heat and electricity consumed off-grid by isolated villages and industries. In 2014, the share of world energy consumption for electricity generation by source was coal at 40.8%, natural gas at 21.6%, nuclear at 10.6%, hydro at 16.4%, other sources (solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, etc.) at 6.3% and oil at 4.3%. Coal and natural gas were the most used energy fuels for generating electricity. The world's electricity consumption was 18,608 TWh[citation needed] in 2012. This figure is about 18% smaller than the generated electricity, due to grid losses, storage losses, and self-consumption from power plants (gross generation). Cogeneration (CHP) power stations use some of the heat that is otherwise wasted for use in buildings or in industrial processes.

But this is just electricity. The goal is to replace all fossil fuels that power vehicles etc. 90 % of all power generation is from fossil fuels. If the thorium fuel cycle can be perfected we could invert that ratio where nuclear and renewables make up 90 percent of the power used.

__________________“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.